CoinsGame - using reason „Fraud” for their scam behaviour

[MPDigital]

I’m sharing this case for transparency and awareness.
Test conditions (confirmed in advance by CoinsGame affiliate manager):

Traffic source: Facebook community (organic)
Model: CPA $100
Test size: 15 FTD
Promotion method and posts were shared and accepted before traffic started.
Timeline:
Traffic started and ran for 6 days.

During the test there were no warnings, no feedback, no traffic freeze.
After I asked whether I should continue posting, I received a message stating that “absolutely all traffic was identified as fraudulent” and all players were unilaterally moved to RevShare (30%).

Stats after 6 days:
45 visits
17 registrations
11 depositors
FTD sum: ~$214
Deposits sum: ~$298
Cashouts: ~$359
Casino NGR: ~–$155 (early payouts / bonus impact)

Important points:
– The traffic was organic FB community traffic, not incent, not bots, not paid ads.
– No technical fraud indicators were provided (no IP overlap, no multi-accounts, no device fingerprint issues, no bonus abuse).
– The only visible reason for the “fraud” label appears to be short-term negative NGR on fresh traffic, during the holiday period.
In my opinion, negative NGR during a short CPA test ≠ fraud.
This looks like a financial decision rather than a compliance or fraud-related one.

Social users needs to be warm up before convert into high paying users but after this will rather create posts to avoid this Casino.





Posting for awareness so other affiliates can evaluate the risk before testing.

 

[MissExposé]

Hello @MPDigital thank you for sharing your experience and notifying the community about these risks. Should you want us to reach out to their representatives please let us know.

 

[MPDigital]

Hello @MPDigital thank you for sharing your experience and notifying the community about these risks. Should you want us to reach out to their representatives please let us know.

Thank you.
Yes, I would genuinely like to understand how “fraud” is being measured after only 6 days of a CPA test, especially when:
– the traffic source was disclosed and approved in advance,
– the test size was small (15 FTD),
– and we work long-term with other brands using the same traffic sources without any fraud classifications.
After labeling the traffic as “fraudulent”, no explanation, report or technical details were provided no indicators, no player-level breakdown, no compliance feedback of any kind.
Additionally, moving all players to 30% RevShare after such a short test is not a realistic or fair solution.
Short-term negative NGR during a test phase is normal, especially with fresh players and early payouts, and should not be confused with fraud.
If the fraud classification is based on short-term performance or negative NGR expectations, I believe this should be stated clearly, as it significantly changes the risk profile for affiliates.

 

[MissExposé]

Thanks @MPDigital, please check your PM.